The Allahabad High Court ordered the reinstatement of six probationary judges who were removed after a 2014 dinner brawl, ruling their dismissal was unfair and required a proper inquiry. The court declared the termination “stigmatic” and in violation of constitutional rights.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court decided to bring back six probationary judicial officers who were removed from their jobs in 2014 and 2015. These officers were dismissed after a fight broke out among at least 15 trainee judges during a dinner in 2014.
A panel of 3 judges—Justices Jaspreet Singh, Manish Mathur, and Subhash Vidyarthi—ruled that removing these officers from service was unfair and had a negative impact on their reputation.
ALSO READ: Serial Fake Rape Case Scandal: Allahabad HC Orders CBI Probe Against Woman & Lawyer
The court said that before removing them, there should have been a proper inquiry.
“Consequently, a writ in the nature of Certiorari is issued quashing the impugned orders of discharge dated 22.9.2014 and 15.6.2015 as well as the resolution of Full Court dated 15.9.2014 and 23.5.2015. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioners forthwith as Probationary Judicial Officers on the post held by them prior to passing of the impugned order. Their continuance or otherwise in service shall be subject to their confirmation in service,”
-the Court ordered.
The six officers who got relief from the court are Sudhir Mishra, Asha Ram Pandey, Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, Ashtosh Tripathi, Mukesh Kumar, and Himanshu Mishra.
In 2014, 11 probationary judicial officers were removed from their jobs, and in 2015, four more were dismissed. Their removal was based on reports by the Senior Registrar (Judicial) and the OSD (Inquiry).
While looking into the petitions of six officers, the court found that the action against them was taken based on a secret inquiry. This inquiry had revealed that the fight among the trainee officers was related to a female officer who was also undergoing training with them.
“Report in its penultimate paragraph states that the matter appears to be quite serious and requires a judicial frown else it will spell wrong message in the society. The said report by the Senior Registrar (Judicial) was thereafter placed before the Administrative Committee of the High Court on 15.9.2014 which resolved that the report dated 12.9.2014 be accepted and the matter be referred to the Full Court for discussion,”
-the order said.
The court further pointed out that the full court’s decision to remove the officers did not consider any other reports about their work or behavior as judicial trainees.
The judges examined whether such a decision could be made without giving them a fair hearing or conducting a proper inquiry. After reviewing various past judgments, the court said,
“The aspect that the conduct of a judicial officer should be unblemished goes without saying but at the same time, none of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for opposite parties indicate any enunciation of law that discharge of a probationary judicial officer or his confirmation can be based solely on the aspect of conduct without adverting to his over all performance during the probation period.”
The court further clarified that if a termination is based on an overall evaluation of an officer’s performance and not on any specific misconduct, then it can be considered a simple discharge from service. However, if an inquiry is conducted to verify a misconduct allegation, then the dismissal becomes more serious.
“It is therefore an inevitable inference of the judgments referred to herein above that if the basis of order of termination of service is a specific act of misconduct irrespective of over all evaluation of performance of duties during the probation period, it would amount to foundation of an order even though couched in simpliciter terms and it is only when the order of simpliciter discharge is based on over all performance of the work done by the probationer during the period of probation that it would not be stigmatic.”
The court found that the full court had not evaluated the officers’ overall performance. Their removal was based only on the misconduct allegation, which made the dismissal unfair.
Thus, the court ruled that this was not just a simple discharge from service but was actually stigmatic.
“Since the petitioners’ discharge has clearly been held to be stigmatic, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have held an inquiry as contemplated under Article 311(2) of Constitution of India. Such a course having not been followed, the impugned orders are clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and therefore violative of not only Article 311(2) but also of Article 14 of Constitution of India. The question No. B therefore also is decided in favour of petitioners,”
-the Court said while allowing the petitions.
Senior lawyers JN Mathur and Sandeep Dixit, along with advocates Avinash Chandra and SM Singh Royekwar, represented the petitioners.
ALSO READ: “Just 108 Women Judges Appointed to Indian High Courts Since 2018”: Reveals Law Minister
Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra represented the High Court.
CASE TITLE:
Sudhir Mishra v State of UP.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
